Christopher Chope: I am delighted to learn that that was a useful intervention, and I am glad that I gave way. When I gave the example of my constituents, I had a Zimbabwean in such a position in mind.
	Obviously, in putting forward a proposal such as clause 1, one needs a statistical basis to show how many people would be affected. It seems as though all the statistics produced by the Home Office in this regard are completely unreliable. The Daily Telegraph reported on 26 April that 25,345 new asylum cases submitted since 2008 still awaited a conclusion. The Home Affairs Committee reported on 24 May that the independent chief inspector of the UK Border Agency agreed that there was a new backlog, but did not know its extent. He advised that he might find out what the extent of it was in due course. We know that the Government were going to achieve the target of completing 90% of asylum cases within six months by December 2011. My understanding is that that target has been abandoned in favour of what is described as a “basket” of 11 alternative indicators. The National Audit Office report of 15 March indicates that up to 181,000 people might have overstayed their work, student or family reunion visas in the past four years. We also know that migrants are arriving in this country at a rate of between 500,000 and 600,000 a year. That is more than 10,000 a week.
	There is a problem here. I think that the most deserving people who come in as migrants are genuine asylum seekers and refugees. However, the UK Border Agency makes it quite clear on its website, under the heading “Employment”, that asylum seekers are not allowed to work:
	“You will not normally be allowed to work while we consider your asylum application, except in very limited circumstances.”
	It continues:
	“Currently, most new asylum applications receive a decision within 30 days.”
	That is what the website says, but it is not borne out by the statistics to which I have referred. So what actually happens? Instead of allowing asylum seekers to obtain employment, we, as national taxpayers, give them support. We provide them with cash, housing, access to the health service and access to our schools when children are involved. We are paying out a lot of extra money to support people while denying them opportunity to support themselves.
	Does that make sense? In my book, it does not make any sense whatever. I therefore hope that the Government will look carefully at my proposition.
	We know that in Sweden, for example, asylum seekers are given the right to work. We can contrast the situation there with that in Greece, about which I have recently received a lot of evidence in my capacity as this year’s chairman of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. The situation in Greece is desperate, because the Greek authorities will not allow the tens of thousands of asylum seekers in the country to work. As a result they cannot get their cases dealt with quickly, and some have been waiting there for many years. Now there is a outbreak of lawlessness, including murder and a lot of robberies, in Athens and surrounding areas, committed by desperate asylum seekers who do not have the means or ability to lawfully seek jobs. They are locked into Greece because they cannot get into any other country. They cannot go back to Turkey, through which most of them arrived. The situation for asylum seekers there is chaotic and desperate. I do not want to see that replicated in this country.

Christopher Chope: The Bill could make provision for that—I certainly intended to make provision for that, but it is not expressed in the current wording. My hon. Friend makes a good point, because we do not want to introduce more disincentives to opting out of the minimum wage, such as putting people in a position in which they are not entitled to any benefits should their circumstances change.
	Another reason why people may not want to opt out of the minimum wage is that unemployment benefit or jobseeker’s allowance is a passport benefits—meaning that they bring with them money for dependents and help towards housing costs and so on—so people could be worse off working for less than the minimum wage than if they were on benefits. My question is why should these people not have the freedom to decide for themselves whether or not they wish to work for the minimum wage?
	Many self-employed people earn far less than the annualised minimum wage for full-time work, thereby avoiding the constraints of the national minimum wage legislation and fixed penalties. There are fixed penalties, which can run into thousands of pounds, for employers who take people on at below the minimum wage, even if that person wants to work for less than the minimum wage.
	Of course, not everybody wants to become self-employed. Another argument that I expressed when the minimum wage legislation was originally before the House in the late 1990s was that it discriminates unfairly and disproportionately against people who are not classified as fully disabled—for the purposes of this argument, I shall describe such people as conscientious plodders. It might take such people a bit longer to do a given bit of work than it would take the average person, but by having a national minimum wage we are putting them at a significant disadvantage, because they might otherwise be able to work longer hours for less money per hour to achieve the same objective. If they did that, they would take pride in being able to work and contribute to our society. I do not have the figures with me, but I believe
	that the proportion of disabled people who are unable to get a job is rising rapidly. That might well be linked with the advent of the national minimum wage.
	What would be the consequences of enabling people to opt out? There are many examples of people who offer work to others, such as window cleaning, gardening and car washing, that is not worth as much as the minimum wage. I am not talking only about what we used to know as boy scouts’ bob-a-job week jobs—it is probably more than a bob a job these days. Many people would be willing to offer something less than the minimum wage for a job, but they are currently not allowed to do so. If the price is right, a potential employer will be willing to provide work. I am sure that there is a lot of opportunity out there in the marketplace. People would offer work to people if the wage demanded were not as high as it is currently under the minimum wage. That is particularly true in the more remote regions of the country.

Gareth Thomas: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for being so generous in giving way. As part of his preparations for today’s debate, has he had the opportunity to study a paper published by the Nation Institute of Economic and Social Research that suggests that the minimum wage has helped to increase rather than reduce employment?

David Hamilton: What would the hon. Gentleman say to the many employers in my area in small and micro companies who want to pay a fair wage, and indeed do so, if they were undercut by an unscrupulous employer down the road who did the same work? In the latter’s profit margins, one factor would be the lowest wage possible. What would he say to the good employer who wanted to pay a fair wage he knew his employees personally?

Christopher Chope: That is happening in the real world anyway. Employers in the black economy do not pay tax or national insurance, or offer basic health and safety protection, but they compete with employers such as the ones to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
	Let us consider my situation. In the House of Commons, I happen to employ a researcher/intern and pay them more than the national minimum wage, but I do not feel that I am at a competitive disadvantage compared with those colleagues who pay interns nothing or significantly less than the national minimum wage. If employers in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency have good quality employees and look after them well and reward them appropriately, all other things being equal they can prosper in the marketplace. Currently, many jobs go to countries in the third world that do not have minimum wages or wages anything like as high we have. However, if we are to provide good-quality jobs in this country, we need the freedom to allow people to compete, and we need to allow people the freedom to work and reach an arrangement with their employer, if they want to.
	Let us imagine that one of the constituency firms to which the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr Hamilton) referred was up against it, had had a big drop in its order book, was facing problems with the bank and all the rest of it. If these people were on the minimum wage and the employer went to them and said, “Look chaps, we’ve got this financial crisis in the company, so we need to come to an agreement whereby we all reduce our wages and salaries if we are to get through this crisis”, that would not be allowed to happen. How inflexible and absurd is that? I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider this issue in a different light following this debate, and discuss these important issues with employers in his constituency and, more importantly perhaps, people in his constituency who are currently not working but willing to work for less than the minimum wage, if allowed to do so.
	The right to work covers not only remuneration, but how many hours are worked. I will not go into this, but obviously there are considerable worries about restrictions on the ability to opt out of the 48-hour working week. That brings me on to clause 3, which incorporates the training wage into the Bill. I am sure that I speak for many colleagues in saying that I could fill my office with unpaid volunteers and interns. Large numbers of organisations now rely on getting young people into their workplaces for no remuneration at all, even when they have to work in London. That is grossly unfair, but one of the reasons it is happening is that there is no flexibility for such people to be paid something between zero and a national minimum wage. If a person is inexperienced and lacking in qualifications, they will obviously be at a disadvantage in the labour market compared with somebody who has got experience and
	better qualifications. We should be encouraging, facilitating, enabling these people to join the labour market, rather than acting to exclude them.
	That is particularly the case for young people. Record and rising numbers of young people are out of work. There was a blip in the figures published this week, but the trend is unmistakable—the number of people between 18 and 24 who are out of work is rising exponentially. Figures for my constituency show that in the period up to May the number of under-24s out of work was rising, whereas the numbers for those in the older age groups were falling.

Christopher Chope: A Division puts people’s positions on the record. For example, the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Tony Lloyd), who says that he supports the Bill—certainly clause 1, if not all of it—might be forced into the position of voting against it, but that would then be on the record. If he wants to vote against the Bill, I hope that he will have the opportunity to do so. I cannot remember how many Bills of mine have gone to a Division this Session—my hon. Friend might know the exact number—but quite a lot of them have. I assure the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) that there is no deal between me and the Government to discuss the Bill and for me then tamely to withdraw it, but obviously I am conscious of the fact that we can have a Division on the Bill only if it is not talked out beyond 2.30 pm. We would also need to take into account the other, equally meritorious Bills seeking debate this morning.

Christopher Chope: I do not have time to look up the unemployment figures in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, but I am sure that all those without jobs who are seeking them will be really pleased to know that they have his full-hearted support for opening up the labour market and giving them better employment prospects.
	This Bill is about the fundamental freedom, liberty and right to work. It also has consequential benefits for the competitiveness of our economy. Clause 1 would save quite a lot of money for the taxpayer, and the other clauses would generate more employment and less dependency on benefits. This Bill is a really good Bill, and I commend it to the House.

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. As I have said, I have lost the philosophical argument and so I think some of the practical arguments should be explored. He pre-empts my speech—I am not sure whether he has been looking over my shoulder—because I was about to make the point that, although a national minimum wage might well be sustainable during periods of economic growth, the Government ought to consider introducing some flexibility to the system during an economic downturn. For example, during a recession they could consider suspending the minimum wage or reducing it. If we are to try to help people get into employment during difficult economic times, it is obvious to everybody—bar Labour Members, it seems—that it will be easier without a national minimum wage.
	Let me return to the point I made in an intervention. The Opposition have based their whole policy on a number of things on the argument that if we increase the cost of something as much as possible, we will reduce its consumption. For example, the argument goes that if we increase the tax on tobacco and alcohol, we will have fewer people smoking and drinking alcohol to excess. The same principle must apply to employment: if we increase the costs of employment, we will see a reduction in it. That follows the same logic. If the Opposition have decided that if we tax something more, we will not see less of it, I would welcome their conversion, but they cannot have it both ways. They cannot say one thing about tobacco and alcohol and think that the principles are somehow completely different as regards employment.
	I want to return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch about the tax and benefits system, because he was on to something. He powerfully made the point that many people who are self-employed in this country do not earn anything like the minimum wage, particularly when their business faces financial problems or uncertainty. I never hear Labour Members speaking up for those people and arguing that they are being underpaid. It is usually those people who are criticised by Labour Members for trying to reduce the wages of their staff, glossing over the fact that the person who runs and owns the business may well not be making any money at all at that time. It comes back to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley) about the attitude of Labour Members. I will be charitable and put it down to a simple lack of understanding of what it is like to run a business. I am sure that they are not really nasty people; they are just misguided. They do not understand, because so few of them have ever employed anyone, run a business or faced the pressures of that. They simply do not understand what it is like.

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend tempts me. I have no problem in principle with what my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch said in terms of people being allowed to work, particularly when they have been here for so long. There is a massive issue—the hon. Member for Manchester Central also made this point—where people have been waiting years and years for their cases to be heard and in some cases have set up a family and are still deprived from being able to work. I would prefer to tackle that by speeding up the process, rather than by accepting that the process will take ages and allowing them to work. That is my preferred solution. That is why I am not so enthusiastic about this part of the Bill. However, I will not allow that to prevent me from supporting the Bill if my hon. Friend puts it to a vote.
	I appreciate that the national minimum wage is popular, I perfectly understand that it is politically expedient not to oppose it in any shape or form, and I absolutely accept that many people in this country have benefited from the national minimum wage and have seen their pay rise as a result. I do not want to undermine that point. Many people in my constituency and others have benefited from it. But in politics it is crucial that we do the right thing, even if it is sometimes unpopular to do it or to say it. It is essential that we have a proper, sensible debate about these issues to ensure that we get them right. Instead of engaging in a sensible debate where we all agree that everyone has the best interests of the public and low-paid people at heart, those who disagree with us on these matters tend to engage in some rather childish name calling and abuse, often through a lack of reason in their debates.
	We want the best for everybody, and although Government Members might have different ways of going about it and a different perspective on it, nobody should be under any illusion, because we want the best for low-paid workers and people who are out of work just as much as Labour Members. I do not decry their different perspective, and I hope that they will not decry ours but instead be grown-up enough to accept that the national minimum wage has made it harder for some people to access the jobs market. If Labour Members are not prepared to accept even that, we are not going to get anywhere with trying to tackle the scourge of unemployment.
	The hon. Member for Manchester Central either would not answer my question or did not know the answer to it, but the fact is that unemployment has gone up since the national minimum wage was introduced. When it was introduced, unemployment was at 1.7 million and youth unemployment was 1.1 million, and now unemployment is at 2.43 million and youth unemployment is at 1.5 million. That has happened since we have had the national minimum wage. Whether people like it or not, and whether it is convenient to point out those facts or not, they are the facts of the matter.
	I am sure that all Members want everybody to have the opportunity to get a job, to develop their career and for it to flourish in every possible way, but for some people the national minimum wage may be more of a hindrance than a help, and if those people—in my view, some of the most vulnerable people in our society—consider it a hindrance and feel that for a short period taking lower pay to get on the first rung of the jobs ladder is a usbgood thing, I do not see why we should stand in their way.
	I hope that we can have that sensible debate, so that we can help everybody in society—not just people in work, but those people who are really struggling to secure their first opportunity on the jobs ladder.

Gareth Thomas: I rise to set out the Opposition’s view on the Bill. In so doing, I congratulate the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) on securing such a desirable spot to set out his views on how the laws of this country should change. No one in the House is remotely surprised that he should have secured this spot; he is a skilful exploiter of House procedure and an essential Friday participant.
	This is probably my first opportunity to exchange views with the hon. Gentleman on private Members’ Bills since our positions were reversed some time ago—he was leading for Opposition Front Benchers one Friday and I was hoping to secure the support of the House for reforms to modernise co-operative law. I fear that I cannot be as helpful to him today as he was to me then.
	Let me be clear, however, that I hope that there will be a vote, and that the hon. Gentleman will have the courage of his convictions and encourage the House to divide. I suspect that he does not have the courage of his convictions and will not put his Bill to a vote. Nevertheless, during the debate he has made a number of interesting points, and I shall briefly touch on them.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned the significance of training for future of employment, and I very much agree with that. He also touched on the growing crisis of youth unemployment, and rightly challenged his Minister to explain what the Government will do if they will not support his Bill. That may have been his coded way of echoing the Opposition’s call for a plan B on the economy.
	The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the concern that some 20% of graduates are out of work. I simply pose the question, do we want more people in work? Of course we do, but should the Government direct the bulk of their efforts at encouraging low-paid, low-skilled jobs, as he appears—by moving this Bill—to imply they should; or should they encourage higher-skilled jobs for
	graduates to enter? That is one of the tragedies of the Government’s refusal to provide a loan to Sheffield Forgemasters.
	The hon. Gentleman lamented the delay in the Home Office’s consideration of asylum applications. Sadly, with some 5,200 jobs set to go in the Home Office over the next two or three years, I suspect that his aspiration and that of most Back Benchers and Labour Front Benchers for the Government to clear the backlog of asylum applications is unlikely to be realised any time soon.

Gareth Thomas: I am simply setting out how many people receive the minimum wage. I will explain later the previous low rates of pay and the significance of the minimum wage.
	I understand that there remains a significant problem of underpayment of the national minimum wage. The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Northampton South alluded to that in their reference to the black economy. There is a real need for a continued effort to ensure proper enforcement of the minimum wage legislation. I hope that the Minister will explain how the Government intend to tackle that.
	I worry that allowing employers to drop the requirement to adopt completely the minimum wage will begin to have another impact on the public purse, because the Government and the taxpayer will have to help, through the benefit and tax credits system, even more than they currently do those on poverty wages. One must ask why the taxpayer or indeed parents, as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Tony Lloyd) alluded to in a sedentary intervention, must pick up the tab more than they do for the actions of rogue employers, as egged on by Government Members.
	Where is the evidence that there would be a significant increase in employment if the Bill became law? In its most recent report, the Low Pay Commission says, and I paraphrase, that the evidence suggests that the minimum wage has not cut employment to any significant degree. The commission also argues that although the number of jobs overall in the economy has continued to fall, the number of jobs in low-paying sectors has increased since the end of the recession. There is therefore no significant evidence to suggest either that the minimum wage has led to job cuts or that economic recovery is being held back by the continued existence of the national minimum wage.
	Undermining the national minimum wage would also have an impact on inequality in this country. We face continuing challenges to reducing inequality, and reducing the pay for the very poorest would only exacerbate inequality. Surely nobody in the House wants that.
	In preparation for this debate, I read the report of the Second Reading debate on the National Minimum Wage Bill from back in December 1997. The then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett), highlighted the impact that the abolition of wages councils had had on jobs in the 1990s. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), who was then probably strongly supported by the right wing of the Conservative party—he probably is not now—had originally explained, when he was a member of the Government of the noble Baroness Thatcher, that they abolished wages councils to create employment opportunities, especially for young people and, in his words, to create an
	“efficient labour market, where there are the minimum of constraints on the rights of employers and employees to agree to offer and accept jobs on contractual terms that suit them both.”—[Official Report, 11 February 1986; Vol. 796, c. 91.]
	In the December 1997 debate, my right hon. Friend said:
	“Abolition of the councils…saw earnings in those industries covered, particularly for the new entrants, fall in real terms. But employment in those sectors did not increase relative to the rest of industry.”—[Official Report, 16 December 1997; Vol. 303, c. 164.]
	The evidence from that period fits with more recent evidence that confirms that the national minimum wage has helped to increase employment. I referred in an intervention on the hon. Member for Christchurch to a paper published by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, “The UK Minimum Wage at Age 22”, which was authored by Richard Dickens, Rebecca Riley and David Wilkinson. The paper examines the effect of the increase in the minimum wage at age 22 and various labour market outcomes. The conclusion is that there was a 2% to 4% increase in the employment rate of low-skilled individuals, and that unemployment had declined, in particular among men.
	Before the introduction of the national minimum wage, there were many horror stories about low pay. Before 1997, the low pay unit found an example of someone working in a chip shop in Birmingham and taking home just 80p an hour. It also found a factory worker earning some £1.22 an hour and a residential home worker earning just £1.66 an hour. I ask the Government Members who are championing the Bill this question: do we really want a return to those days, because that would be the impact of the Bill?

Edward Leigh: That is an excellent intervention that shows the moral issues in our debate. There will undoubtedly be situations—this is where I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and why I think his Bill deserves to be debated in Committee—involving a perfectly good and caring employer, such as the one described by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley), who is in a difficult situation and employees who are desperate to keep their jobs. We must be aware of that.
	There are two other issues that are worth mentioning. The first is the increasing scandal of internships, particularly for young graduates. I feel quite strongly about this matter, which has already been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone). I suppose I should declare an interest as a parent, and two of my children are already graduates. All of us who are parents know that whereas our generation—that of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and myself—left university in times of full employment, young people are increasingly trapped in a disgraceful situation in which employers tell them that they can work for them, but only if they work for nothing. I do not think that that is right.
	When I take on an intern in the House of Commons, I pay them the minimum wage. I am firm on that. It is fine if a young person between school and university wants to come here for a week’s work experience and
	work for nothing, but I am absolutely clear that if someone is working here for six months or so, they should get the minimum wage, and I will not pay any less than that. However, many young people are now trapped.
	One advantage of the Bill—it is worth debating further—is the excellent idea of a training wage, which I see as a kind of halfway house. It would enable employers to pay graduates something, although my view is that, if the company involved is in the City, it should pay the minimum wage. It is better if young graduates, having worked so hard to get through university, are not in the dreadful situation of kicking their heels at home or, if they do work, getting nothing for it. We must have a proper debate about the scandal of internships. It is good that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch has put that in his Bill. It is a Back-Bench Bill and we all know that in reality it is unlikely to become law. However, we need a fuller debate on that matter.
	We also need a fuller debate on clause 1, and my hon. Friend has been honest about that. It deals with a subject we do not hear much about. It is a scandal that in this country large number of foreign nationals—people whose applications for British citizenship are being considered, or asylum seekers—are trapped in the appalling situation of not being able to work. I think that we are a bit dishonest with ourselves about that.
	The hon. Member for Harrow West, who leads for the Opposition, made the valid point that we should not allow employers to pay less than the minimum wage because all that will happen is that the taxpayer will have to step in through the tax credit system. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley said that he did not agree with a tax credit system, but that is a bit of a simplistic argument. It is impossible for people with children to raise a family on anything much less than the minimum wage plus some tax credit. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) made the point that we should have an honest debate about what basic national benefit should be paid to keep people in body and soul. I have always argued that a universal minimum benefit payment should be available, with a minimum of churning of taxation on top of that, and as flat a tax rate as possible, which would encourage people into employment. The trouble is that so much of our minimum wage-tax credit system does not help the poor. It often traps people in unemployment and dependency and discourages people from going into employment. Those issues need to be debated much more honestly, so I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch on introducing the Bill. It is an interesting Bill that raises issues of great importance, and I hope that it will be allowed into Committee.

LAWFUL INDUSTRIAL ACTION BILL (MINOR ERRORS) BILL